Note: This is in response to a comment by RedState user "kowalski," which can be seen here.

First, my work from the front lines in Iraq (and Roggio's, Yon's, etc.) does get exposure, from the Washington Times to the Weekly Standard to AmSpec. One of my breaking news stories was linked by Drudge, as well (bottom of linked graphic).

While that's not a page A1 story in one of the nation's top three most-read newspapers, it does mean that there are eyes-on my and our reports -- and, when you get down to it, that has to be enough (at least as a starting point). We do what we do not for glory or gain (clearly), but because we see it as being of paramount importance that accurate, eyewitness information be made available to the people here at home -- and, as a result of our work, it is. People still have to find it and decide to read it (in my case, they can hear about it on Laura Ingraham and on Melanie Morgan's show out in San Fran, and they can read about it in the Weekly Standard, the JPost, Human Events, the Washington Times, the American Thinker, AmSpec, here at RedState, the Hawaii Reporter, and more -- all of which should point them to my website, where I hope they'll stick around (or keep coming back) to get more information and more reports and analysis. (As an aside, the copious emails and comments I receive from eternally grateful parents of the soldiers I cover are reward in themselves, though that is not, of course, why I do this).

Also unfortunately is the fact that, since we are not staff reporters of "news," our submissions to newspapers and other outlets are all-to-often relegated to the Op-Ed page, rather than being considered for the news pages. Newspapers want their own trusted people providing news, though all too often (ironically), with regard to Iraq, those reporters are simply relaying what they were told by some other person they pay to tell them what happened somewhere, or to what someone else purportedly experienced. As a result of that, our reporting from the front, though not endowed by many with the credibility that comes with having an NYT or WaPo press card, is generally far more accurate than what is filed by those papers' staff reporters.

I won't get into it very deeply here, but the story I mention above, the exclusive amazing story from Samarra that folks will get to see online in 4 days, was pitched to one of these major newspapers (by me) -- and the response was "we're interested, but one of our people [currently sitting comfortably in America] will have to write it." I responded immediately with a resounding "no thanks", as I in Samarra, not some writer at home, had spent a month with the unit, and had interviewed all participants, walked through the events at the location, and had access to everything and everybody else involved, including the contextual knowledge of the coalition/AQ situation in Samarra. Another paper asked me to keep it to under 800 words for their Op-Ed page. Blah.

The bottom line is, though, we do have outlets (though none better than our own websites, which is why we try to flush traffic there at every opportunity), and we risk our lives to make the information available. It's up to the American people to decide to use that information. As far as media competition goes, that's a large part of what Bill Roggio and his PMI (an organization I've done a lot of work to help out with) are trying to do -- to set up a news-reporting version of the AP, AFP, Reuters, etc. that makes its living (inasmuch as a 501(c)3 can "make a living") filing reports from the front lines in the war on terror, through the use of embedded reporters. Is it possible? Yes. Is it sustainable? To this point, the conservatives and unaffiliateds who have been approached -- some people who spend an inordinate amount of time griping about the media we (Americans) have vs. the media they want us to have -- have proven unwilling to actually do anything about the problems they are so vocal about; therefore, PMI is behind the power curve as far as funding goes. If and when a conservative (or non-liberal) with actual vision to go along with his or her deep pockets steps forward and decides to back the frontline reporting project, then this, I believe, can and will become a powerhouse of journalism that more and more people will see and become affected by.

The other thing, of course, is complexity and nuance, and the attention span of the so-called "average American." People want black-and white, cut-and-dried, good-and-bad, success-or-failure reports from Iraq that they can hear in thirty seconds or skim in two minutes, and anything that purports to be accurate reporting or analysis will have trouble competing with that. For example, here's my tome on the current situation in Iraq as I saw and experienced it (link). It was finally (thankfully!) published by the American Thinker, a great online magazine which doesn't shy away from analysis and realistic reporting. However, before they agreed to run it, it was turned down (or ignored) by at least five print publications. Part of the reason for this is, I believe, the length and shades-of-grey style of description; another part, though, is the fact that almost all publications which would run such a piece have already picked their side of the "Iraq is going swimmingly vs. Iraq is an unmitigated disaster" divide, and refuse to publish anything which contains the least bit of negativity (for the former) or the least bit of positive news (for the latter). Anything accurate from Iraq, of course, will likely contain a bit (or more) of both; that's just the nature of the beast.

The situation in Iraq, rather than being black-and-white and easily explainable, is a million different shades of gray. The individual bits of reality seen there are so fluid that the conclusions one draws from them are often invalid before they can be expressed. Further, the complexity of the situation on the ground there is very difficult to grasp without witnessing it first-hand. Being back home for even a few weeks is enough to lose touch with its intricacy, as I found out during the two months I was home this summer between my April-May and August-October front-line embeds.

Perhaps the only thing more difficult that grasping that complexity  surrounding both the positive and negative developments there  is attempting to communicate it effectively to those who either cannot or have not been to the various front lines in Iraq to witness it for themselves. However, as one who has chosen to travel there myself for the express purpose of gathering information and communicating it to the people at home who can and will use it to make an informed decision on the situation there, that is a task that I have taken on, for better or worse.

Unfortunately, doing so means that those who are staunchly against the war there, as well as those who are for it, will be disappointed, as the news from there is rarely purely positive or purely negative, but, as mentioned multiple times above, is generally a dark or light shade of gray.

I understand the frustration on your part, I really do; allow me to conclude with this: as I said, there are outlets where we can publish our work, and more exposure means that more people will come across our reporting and, hopefully, be better armed before they draw personal conclusions on the state of the war and the future of Iraq.

While that might not sound like much in exchange for the daily and nightly risking of one's life for months at a time, against dedicated armed opposition who is targeting you every bit as much as they are targeting the soldiers that you are with, it is, for those few of us who do this, a risk that is one hundred percent worth it.

Jeff Emanuel, a special operations veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, was embedded with the U.S. military in Iraq both in April and May, and from August through October, of this year. His reports, which are 100% funded by reader donations, can be seen here.

"I loved life, my family, my children, and now I am all pieces of flesh, soon I will die and I will die that people who hate me have a demcracy, that is the story today, yesterday it was WMDs, tomorrow who knows. Was Saddam contained we argued, did we have to do this, we argued, doesn't matter, I am dead, and that is the one fact I understand."

That some dude named JeffEmmanualBlogspot.com is a better journalist than Wall Street Journal, NY Times, and International Herald Tribune?

Click to expand...

Well, (and no offense Kathianne), Kathianne likes blogs. To me, they're nothing more than opinions and have no more validity than any other opinion. Certainly not worth linking in support of any proposition other than one's opinion.

By the by, Kathianne, I agree that the media has failed, but the failing is not in not putting forth the right-wing propaganda of the Washtimes or Laura Ingraham or the other rabid right press, it's in not holding the admin's feet to the fire for chipping away at checks and balances, the rule of law, our constitutional protections all of which have been run roughshod over for the last 7 years,

That some dude named JeffEmmanualBlogspot.com is a better journalist than Wall Street Journal, NY Times, and International Herald Tribune?

Click to expand...

So you have no clue what point the poster is trying to make? I can believe that, and nice to see you admit to you problem...
well the is simple enough....the MSM would rather have their in house reporters write about something they have no first hand experience with nor any first hand knowledge of rather than the opposite...
That is ... printing articles written by the folks that have actually been to, and have first hand knowledge and experience of that of which they write....

namely, this writers, having spent a month with the unit, and having interviewed all participants, walked through the events at the location, and had access to everything and everybody else involved, including the contextual knowledge of the coalition/AQ situation in Samarra.
So try reading comp. 101 to bone up on your skills....

Well, (and no offense Kathianne), Kathianne likes blogs. To me, they're nothing more than opinions and have no more validity than any other opinion. Certainly not worth linking in support of any proposition other than one's opinion.

By the by, Kathianne, I agree that the media has failed, but the failing is not in not putting forth the right-wing propaganda of the Washtimes or Laura Ingraham or the other rabid right press, it's in not holding the admin's feet to the fire for chipping away at checks and balances, the rule of law, our constitutional protections all of which have been run roughshod over for the last 7 years,

Click to expand...

LOL

O-tay! I get it now. This blogger-no-one's-ever-heard-of, this "Jeff Emanuel" guy, is the adminstrator of the wingnut site Redstate.com, he's an public relaions officer for the University of Georgia College Republicans, and he was blogging years ago about how "the tide was turning in Iraq" (while in fact, things were getting worse) -- and were supposed to hold him up as some sort of independent unbiased "journalist".

WASHINGTON  The homeland security chief on Saturday lashed into his own employees for staging a phony news conference at the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

I think it was one of the dumbest and most inappropriate things I've seen since I've been in government, Michael Chertoff said.

I have made unambiguously clear, in Anglo-Saxon prose, that it is not to ever happen again and there will be appropriate disciplinary action taken against those people who exhibited what I regard as extraordinarily poor judgment, he added.

Asked specifically if he planned to fire anyone at FEMA, which is part of his department, Mr. Chertoff declined to say, citing personnel rules.

Videos

FEMA blasted by its boss

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff blasts a phony briefing as 'dumbest' thing he's seen in government

There will be appropriate discipline, he told reporters at a news conference with New York's governor where they announced an agreement on a driver's license plan.

Mr. Chertoff said he knew nothing about the matter until after it happened and that he can't explain why it happened.

The White House on Friday scolded FEMA for the faux press conference about assistance to victims of wildfires in southern California.

The agency  much maligned for its sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina over two years ago  arranged to have FEMA employees play the part of reporters at the event Tuesday and question Vice Adm. Harvey E. Johnson, the deputy director.The questions were soft and gratuitous.

Well, (and no offense Kathianne), Kathianne likes blogs. To me, they're nothing more than opinions and have no more validity than any other opinion. Certainly not worth linking in support of any proposition other than one's opinion.

By the by, Kathianne, I agree that the media has failed, but the failing is not in not putting forth the right-wing propaganda of the Washtimes or Laura Ingraham or the other rabid right press, it's in not holding the admin's feet to the fire for chipping away at checks and balances, the rule of law, our constitutional protections all of which have been run roughshod over for the last 7 years,

Click to expand...

LMAO. I think you covered two of the three allegedly right-leaning media outlets ... wonder if there's enough bytes left on this site to list the lefty ones?

It is not the media's job to hold ANYONE's feet to the fire for anything ... it's their job to report facts and events.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!